On Tuesday, I took a little issue with an attack on a pro-gun member of Congress, mostly because it was a terrible argument. It's absolutely idiotic to make claims like that when the facts are so easy to find pointing out the opposite.
But that was only part of the equation. There are other ways we know gun control isn't the answer, and that's to look at anti-gun states.
Luckily, I didn't have to dig very far to find some of this. It seems the AARP alternative, Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC), had a piece taking a look at the claim already, just waiting for me in my news feed. Kind of convenient, actually.
Things used to be even worse. Before the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, the Second Amendment was effectively null and void in the nation’s capital, with the District virtually banning civilian possession of handguns and requiring that all other firearms be kept locked or disassembled at all times, even in the home.
Like Baltimore, however, D.C. has one of the highest rates of gun-related crime in the nation (although that may be changing thanks to President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops).
Colorado provides another example of the dismal failure of gun control laws. Democrats have dominated the state government there for more than a decade, and they used that power to pass a bevy of anti-gun legislation. Each time, liberals promised the new laws would make the state safer.
Despite this, however, Colorado went from a below-average murder rate in 2013 to the second-most dangerous state in the country in 2025.
It’s the same story time and again in liberal cities and states. California, Illinois, and New York have consistently gone as far as the courts will let them in restricting residents’ ability to purchase and possess firearms for sport, hunting, or personal safety. Yet these states, and particularly the large cities in these states with even more restrictive laws, remain hotbeds of violence.
The piece, whose author isn't named, does go on to note that plenty of red states have issues with crime as well, which is fair. Look at cities like Memphis, for example. Tennessee is pro-gun, but Memphis has a crime problem. Of course, most of that is because judges keep issuing suspended sentences for violent crimes, but it's a valid point.
Of course, when it comes to the infringement of a civil liberty, the onus should never have been on us to somehow justify our right to keep and bear arms as reducing crime. It tends to, sure, but that shouldn't have been our responsibility. It could be argued that if a right is going to be restricted, then those who want to restrict it need to show not just a compelling reason, such as a massive reduction in crime, but minimal impact on the law-abiding, if it's to be considered at all.
I'm not interested in considering it, personally.
In reality, all it does is interfere with the law-abiding citizen who simply wants to go about their lives and exercise their rights. The criminals never follow it, and while a law might create some kind of brief inconvenience, they also often open up criminal opportunities. So, the law-abiding get screwed over, the criminals keep being criminal, and nothing good happens.
As noted, Colorado's slide is a prime example of the problems. Baltimore, DC, and other anti-gun jurisdictions have long been anti-gun. It's difficult to use them as an example, but Colorado's shift was more recent, thanks to the Californication of the state.
Plus, let's not forget that anti-gunners like to use "gun deaths" to make things look more terrifying, but the truth is that it's nothing but smoke and mirrors.
That's what gun control hinges on. Everything about it is about convincing you that you'd be safer without your rights, because they can't take them away unless you let them.
It'll never make you safer. It'll never do anything but turn you into a victim. We all know it.
The trick is to convince the rest of the country that they're being tricked.
